Wide

[richiebee]

I looked through the Intro materials and couldn\'t find this: How wide is a \"path\" or \"lane\"? When a horse is \"3w\" how many feet from the rail is this animal?

[bobphilo]

While the more important question is how much ground a horse losses for each path out(about 9 feet or one length), you can figure how much further out the horse is by taking the 9 feet more he has to travel and plug it into the formula for the cirfumference of a circle.
Let\'s say the increased ground traveled is represented by half the increase in circumference (a turn is half a circle) and the increased distance from the rail is represented by the increase in radius.
Since C = 2R x 3.14 or 2R = C divided by 3.14, a horse is going 9 feet more around (a turn = a semi-crcle), he is adding 18 feet to the cirfumference of a full circle. Therefore 2R = 16 divided by 3.14. which comes out to R = 2.9, or about 3 feet for every path from the rail. A horse running 3W is running 2 paths wider than the rail horse so he would be about 6 feet further out, if my math isn\'t too rusty.
This is a rough estimate and Jerry could probably give you something more precise.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Correction to calculation. The formula should be 2R = 18 divided by 3.14. I mistyped.

Bob

[richiebee]

Thank you, Bob.

TGJB might be able to tell me how much subjectivity goes into the wide measurements, and what if any science is involved.

Again, Bob, wonderful job of deduction and \"ciphering\". I think you have admirably composed a post that neither CH nor the erstwhile Chuckles would care to refute.

[miff]

Richiebee,

Wide is one of my favorite subjects re TG. Aside from your question, how do you deal with a fig when a horse is say 4w but that path is returning better energy that the 1 path, i.e. dead rail. TG  still has to give credit for the 4w in its calculation even though they know the rail was dead.

Mike

[bobphilo]

My pleasure Rich. I just hope that I didn\'t back traumatic memories to all of those who strugled with tedious math courses in school. I actually used to hate math as a kid until I discoverd that numbers can tell me a lot of great stuff about my real interest, horseracing. So thus, a figure handicpper was born. Now the math phobic is just a couple of incomplete papers away from my Master\'s in research methods and statistcs. Go figure.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Mike,

I think the answer to that is that ground loss from going wide can be quantified and incorporated into the horses figure. If a horse ran further he should get credit for that regardless if he avoided a dead rail or not. The dead rail, on the other hand is not so easy to quantify into a figure. It\'s still an important trip factor to take into consideration in evaluating a horse performance - just somethig you can\'t really give a precise number adjustment for.

Bob

[richiebee]

Miff:

    Some days 3w is a good thing. I think the most valuable resource is head on replays. If a horse breaks clear in a sprint, and the jock doesn\'t immediately drop over, and you see this a couple of times, you can make a logical inference about the energy as you call it on the rail, at least on the backside. And TGJB has explained that due to the mysteries of track maintenance, the \"2 path\" could be bad on some parts of a track and good on other parts.

    Does anyone produce, for themselves or for sale, running lines that indicate a horse\'s \"wide\" value at each point of call? Would be interesting to see and probably hard to read.

[miff]

Rich,

I agree.When I discussed this with Jerry it became very apparent that any \"adding on\" to a fig for the \"better\" path would have to be somewhat arbitrary.I do feel that something more than an X is called for but exactly what, I don\'t know.

I keep my own trip notes so I just make a mental type adjustment when dealing with a fig for a horse affected by a bias, one way or the other.

Mike

I mentioned this the other day, but since the topic is being discussed again I\'ll mention it again. I don\'t think the problem is so much putting ground loss into the figures on the very dead rail days. That\'s OK. The potential problems are in not noticing the days when the rail is just dead enough so that the negative effect is similar to the ground loss and/or the days when the rail is more positive than just the ground saving aspect of it (a good rail). If you miss all the biases other than the extreme dead rails, you could misinterpret results and not get accurate speed figures on those days.

[miff]

Class,

I agree, but there is a danger with regard to who and how one concludes that, for example, the rail is sneaky better. You know what I mean. I argue this often with people who feel that the horses who ran inside that day were just better and it was not a \"sneakey\" good rail at all.

How do you confirm who is correct? I guess you bet your convictions when those horses run back.

Mike

[bobphilo]

classhandicapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you miss all the
> biases other than the extreme dead rails, you
> could misinterpret results and not get accurate
> speed figures on those days.

Class,

I think the solution to that lies in your own philosophy. Speed figures represent only what is quantifiable in a horses performance. They have to be interpreted in terms of the trip - dead rail, pace, etc. Some things just can\'t be built into the figures.
As you would say, \"how the figure was obtained is as important as the figure\".

Bob

miff,

>How do you confirm who is correct?<

I think that\'s what makes track bias a potentially profitable and worthwhile area of study. It seems to me that even experienced handicappers often disagree about the same day. So if your skill level is fairly high, there\'s got to be a pretty big edge in that. Many people aren\'t paying any attention to it at all and a lot of the rest are often wrong.  

One thing I am certain of is that most people wildly overrate the impact and that\'s why they think biases don\'t exist.

There are days I think the track is being extra kind to speed and I hear other handicappers arguing against it because a few horses rallied for second or one deep closer won. That\'s just silly. Biases are rarely so strong that they dictate every result. They influence the results between otherwise close contenders. It\'s sort of like a biased roulette wheel. You don\'t expect the biased numbers to come out every time, they just come out more often than thye should based on expectations. The same is true when horses come back after an effort against the bias. You can\'t expect every horse than ran well against a bias to improve sharply. Just a few more than you would otherwise expect.
 


 

bob,

That\'s the way I look at it.

That\'s also why I don\'t put too much weight on pattern reads where you are talking about 1/4, 1/2, or even 1 point moves in the figures. I have a tough time believing anyone\'s figures are that accurate to begin with. Then when I add some of my subjective things to the picture, the pattern often looks a lot different than it did before.

I learned a few things about patterns from people here, but mostly I\'m looking at the big picture and big questions.

Is this horse generally moving forward, backward, or staying flat?

Was that last race so much better than anything else he\'s done that it\'s unlikely to be duplicated?

Was there a reason for that last great/poor effort that makes me think it can be duplicated/excused?  

[RICH]

\"That\'s also why I don\'t put too much weight on pattern reads where you are talking about 1/4, 1/2, or even 1 point moves in the figures. I have a tough time believing anyone\'s figures are that accurate to begin with. \"


I disagree 100%. To me these kinds of differences are key in reading patterns.